The Psychodynamics and Power of Feminism: By Howard S. Schwartz

...but strangely I don't feel castrated. Nope - I just checked, and everything's still there. Phew! ;)

While it's an interesting read, the essay seems to be a bit over-the-top in its Freudian zeal.

Oh and by the way, remember that a woman staying a virgin or otherwise behaving in any way which might be mistaken for modesty is "oppression". Falling over with her legs in the air whenever any male is within 100 yards and dressing in a way which renders hookers completely invisible is "liberation". Don't worry - I get what's supposed to be oppression confused with what's supposed to be liberation, too.

We have women in combat roles in the Canadian military (despite the fact that they are NOT represented proportionally in casualty statistics, how very interesting), and frankly nobody but a couple of wingnut feminists and their pet government mouthpiece - the Governor General, really seems to give a damn. Also, we Canadian men seem to be completely un-castrated by this, despite the dire predictions of the essay.

As far as I'm concerned:

- if women want equality in this society, they can die for it too. They bleed the same color we do, and it's long past the time for them to be paying the same price men have always paid to live how we do.
- every woman that gets killed or injured on the battlefield is saving a man from getting killed or injured on the battlefield, in addition to serving her country. While it's a shame that anyone has to die, I'm glad it's not 100% men the way it has been for the rest of history.

Ooops - almost forgot one!

- sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

"it is impossible for men to resist putting women into combat.."

Where does he get that idea from? It seems obvious to me, that men's instinct to protect women as individuals, is stronger than the desire to protect them as a class. Defending one's country helps protect its women as a class, but specific women being killed in combat comes off as being more affect on them as indiviudals per se. The horror of seeing pictures and reading stories, of women being mutilitated and killed has gut level effect. People make many decisions at gut level, as opposed to logical reasoning.

-ax

Considering women are historically less than 1% of combat deaths and casualties, I'd say Patriarchs are doing an outstanding job of not, I repeat "not" putting women in combat.

...it was good for a giggle all the same.

I'm surprised that the responses so far are so negative about this piece.

The basic premise -- and yes -- it is Freudian -- is that a man's relationship with his mother is unavoidably conflicted.

Maybe all the younger dudes here-abouts might want to consider this fact:

Their fathers -- babyboomers -- were born to mothers who believed in Dr. Spock.

Dr. Spock (not the Star Trek vulcan), a well-respected famous pediatrician -- the "Dr. Phil" of his day -- said that it was important that a mother not "spoil" her infant.

It was important NOT to breastfeed the baby.

That was only for poor people.

(Hence the I.Q. deficiency of boomers ... now we know that breastfeeding increases I.Q. by at least 20%...)

Also, Spock taught naive 50's-60's moms that it was important to feed their babies on a strict, regulated schedule ...

force-bottle-feed them if necessary at the appropriate time; maybe at 2am when they were sleeping briefly between anxiety attacks....

and, logically, DO NOT FEED THEM when they are crying to be fed....

If you need a better explanation for the anal-retentive, passive-aggressive, bi-polar delusional culture we inhabit today ...

and the illogical but precise cultural invention of feminism...

read Dr. Spock.

It only takes a few crazies to screw up the entire planet for generations...

Remember how he made big headlines and controversy, by protesting with the hippies (like against Vietnam)? "Around him everywhere you look, are kids he screwed up with his book"-Mad Magazine

No doubt he was a mangina.

-ax